I still think that he's very good at doing what he does, and I definitely prefer some of his films to influencing equivalents by Godard and Truffaut. Sorry for breaking your balls, I guess?

I also think he is good at what he does. I think the lady who rings up my groceries is good at what she does too.And Tarantino has made no films that are in any way the equivalent to what Godard and Truffaut made. If you are trying to compare the works of these film-makers by simply sitting down, watching them and asking yourself, "Which was better?" then I'm not sure what to tell you...

Perhaps equivalent wasn't the best word. What I meant to say is the films by which he is influenced and to which he pays his homages to, like Tirez sur le Pianiste and Bande à part, among a shitload of other ones that aren't even related to the two French directors. I don't see anything wrong with that, and I don't see why people have to cry about it.

I had written some long winded post about how i like what i like blah blah blah but I think the most accurate way to describe my feelings toward this current debate and why posts like the one that started all this always come off so pretentiously douchey is that people like that are what I call "movie hipsters." People with some elevated opinion of film and what makes it "good" and the bottom line... with both movies and music... is that no one gives a shit how great you think your opinions are or why you think some popular film maker/actor/musician/band that most people seem to enjoy is the worst thing to ever be witnessed by your eyes and ears... especially when it's worded in such an annoyingly snobbish way.

It's akin to metaldiscussor666 complaining about how he deleted his itunes playlist and can't get it back.

People like movies for all sorts of reasons and you can't just boil it down to "just watching movies for fun" and "serious appreciation of art and history" - there is a lot of gray area there really, and you also can't make bold statements like

Quote:

The bottom line is that if someone doesn't take an active approach to trying to learn the history and understand film (or anything for that matter), then they just don't know what they are talking about,

It's all relative really, and people will give you a thousand different reasons why they like a movie or why they don't like it. Films are powerful tools of connection and people, different as they are, are bound to find whatever parallels to life and lessons about life they will in films of any genre and kind...how is any one person to say, because they have a film degree, that their opinion is better than anyone else's? I'm veering dangerously close to the "opinions are like assholes" argument here, but really - movies are put out there to be judged by a public of people who will project their own feelings onto it and take away various messages from it, and whatever perceived quality, or lack thereof, you may find in the writing or directing is really arbitrary at the end of the day.

Long story short, you can't use the history of film or perceived artistic quality to try and tell people their opinions are wrong.

I like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but what really annoys me about Tarantino's movies is that he's attained this huge, HUGE following, I'd call it 'cult following' but it's probably way too big for that, while the people who heavily influenced him remain largely unknown among the teens and 20-somethings who revere him. There's nothing wrong with kingnuuuur watching Tarantino and Godard's films (and all T's other influences) and then deciding that he prefers T's works; what I have a problem with is people idolizing his films without really understanding how much they borrow from other films. It'd be like saying Pepsi is the best cola ever, without having tried Coke. It's just ridiculous.

That said, there are lots and lots of better crime films out there from far superior directors like Michael Mann (Thief, Heat), Francis Ford Coppola (not just for the obvious Godfather movies but also for greats like The Conversation), Steven Soderbergh (everyone knows Ocean's Eleven but Out of Sight was his superior work with George Clooney), Coen Brothers, Martin Scorsese, etc. Not trying to provide a comprehensive list, but to me Tarantino made essentially fast food crime movies, and I say that as someone who really enjoys a burger now and then. They're really tasty and sometimes you just crave the silly dialog, quirky scenes, and not much else will satisfy that craving, but in the end they're not really that nutritious. After finishing Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction (the only two of his films I like much) I'm satisfied, but not left with anything particularly profound. I mean, Thief for example is a really tight character study of the titular Thief and his two major goals in life (freedom from authority and a family with a house, both dreamed up in prison) and at first they're able to coexist, but over the course of the film come into serious conflict with one another. On top of being a great crime movie with exciting heists and action, it's a fascinating look at how complex people are, capable of being defined by two separate and in some ways opposite desires, which in Thief's case ironically stem from the very same source (prison). None of T's movies leave me with anything close to that.

_________________

MorbidBlood wrote:

So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

Oh, here i was getting at how people found Reservoir Dogs really unique and realistic because of the concentration on free flowing dialogue, rather than being an action-heavy crime film and all. People have said that that's a cool, more realistic feeling crime film because of how "organic" the dialogue feels, and it's not your classic 80s action/crime movie layout. That's what i was talking about there. Obviously, i don't really agree.

EDIT: And yeah - The Conversation is fantastic. Been watching some more great Hackman recently: night Moves is a killer neo-noir, and Hoosiers (1986) with Dennis Hopper is great.

_________________Razorwyre:promo track track from 'Another Dimension' LP"The best speed metal album of the year"

Last edited by DeathRiderDoom on Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pretty much. DoucheyFeminist literally said that he disapproves of watching movies and deciding which you liked better. That's such a huge load of pretentious, self-righteous shit.

Well if you'd like to look at it so simple mindedly, and I honestly don't know why I expected anything else, then feel free I guess. But basically what I was trying to say is, you can't take a piece of abstract art, set it next to a photograph taken for a McDonalds add, then ask someone which of the two gives you a better feeling or which you'd rather look at. They both may be visual art, but they are indeed different with different intentions.

There's nothing wrong with kingnuuuur watching Tarantino and Godard's films (and all T's other influences) and then deciding that he prefers T's works; what I have a problem with is people idolizing his films without really understanding how much they borrow from other films. It'd be like saying Pepsi is the best cola ever, without having tried Coke. It's just ridiculous.

Shit I don't think I've watched even a third of the movies from which he takes his references from. It doesn't really matter to me though, because I know how Tarantino makes his films; usually a big collage of well-shot tribute scenes with great actors and choice of soundtrack. That doesn't bother me in the least, and if anything I can admire Tarantino's tastes and love for movies. Anyway, most of his films (including Kill Bill) I find entertaining and fun to watch, and it's still fun to pick out the references. When I saw Uma Thurman in a yellow track suit, I didn't flip the bird at the screen going "Bruce Lee is rolling in his grave! " I thought "Oh cool, a Bruce Lee reference. Respect. " If people didn't get the reference, well then too bad. We live in the age of the internets, and as such there are no secrets. Curious fans will find out. People will either be told (sometimes rudely), or come across it by accident or through research. There's no sense in acting like a haughty jerk and calling people uneducated morons because they enjoy watching films made by a passionate director.

misogynisticfeminist wrote:

But basically what I was trying to say is, you can't take a piece of abstract art, set it next to a photograph taken for a McDonalds add, then ask someone which of the two gives you a better feeling or which you'd rather look at. They both may be visual art, but they are indeed different with different intentions.

Sure, but I simply don't regard Tarantino's films as McDonald's adverts compared to the variety of their source materials. This also doesn't necessarily imply that I dislike the source material either. YMMV.

Well I didn't mean to say you had to watch 100% of Tarantino's influences to say anything about him. Just that people who've seen none of them and yet treat him as a god and get butthurt when you criticize him are super annoying.

_________________

MorbidBlood wrote:

So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

I understand that. Though I have to say, I don't think I've come across such people. I mean I don't think that I've seen this happen here, for starters. (I very well could be wrong, I don't follow this thread like other regulars)

EDIT: After a quick search, I'd say that people who discuss Tarantino are generally aware of what they're getting in his films.

Last edited by kingnuuuur on Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You know, the fact that we haven't lynched darkeningday yet is no indicator that the arrival of even more douchey, try hard elitists like you is welcome. Don't lame up this thread with that crap.

Are you serious man? Calling people elitists while at the same time saying something like "we haven't lynched darkeningday yet"...It's called having a discussion, and other than your posts, it seems everyone is fine with actually doing just that, discussing what is at hand. You should really take a step back and read what you are saying.

While comparing Tarantino's work to a Mcdonalds add is perhaps extreme, I still feel it is an appropriate comparison when talking about the works of most of the directors he is directly influenced by, specifically the New Wave directors of the 60's. What those guys did, in my opinion, was the most important movement to ever happen in the short history of film itself, and while Tarantino's movies may be aesthetically pleasing in many different ways, they are historically insignificant when compared to the likes of those he learned from. The analogy may be extreme, but I feel relatively appropriate.

The Pentagram movie - Last Days Here, is awesome. It follows Pentagram singer Bobby Liebling throughout what could have very well been his last days. At the start he is a massive crack/heroin addict living amongst filth in his parents basement. He had these crazy gashes in his arm and constantly picked at his wounds because he was convinced he had parasites. His "manager" Pellet bends over backwards to get him clean and to get him to make music again. By the end of the movie he's clean with a girlfriend and a baby and playing again. I'm honestly surprised he didn't die and actually managed to get clean.

Just to weigh in on the Tarantino inferno while it's still raging, I suppose I ultimately see him as the epitome of a style-over-substance artist. His works, while superficially engaging in certain ways, leave me entirely hollow, and even when speaking only to style I can't summon much admiration for him because of how frequently and eagerly he indulges in what amounts to masturbatory quasi-plagiarism. His ideas simply aren't his half the time. The whole thing is just kind of perverse... there's very little originality there, cloying caricaturism, terrible fucking writing... shit, even the action bits usually aren't convincing, to say nothing of the casting choices.

The most I can give the man is that he's a collage artist of sorts, and collage doesn't necessarily have to suck. I respect his knowledge of cinema, and his obvious ability to geek out on film is pretty intense. It's just his way of going about things doesn't create any new landmarks in creative effort; instead of a compelling synthesis of influences you get the cinematic equivalent of sitting in some man-child's poster-plastered bedroom, listening to him go through his top 200 favorite scenes in film history. It's just... kind of odious.

And one last point to end this on: One of the biggest failures of Tarantino's work is that it tries as hard as it can to co-opt the camp charisma that those 60s/70s films brought about, yet goes about it so extremely self-consciously that it can't hope to hold any of the DIY naivete that gave rise to that special personality in the first place.

Speaking of Tarantino taking loads of influences for his movies, I highly recommend City on Fire for those who liked Reservoir Dogs. The general theme/plot what almost lifted from that film - the jewelry heist with an undercover cop that goes wrong. It's impossible he was not influenced by that film considering his love for Hong Kong cinema. Although the approach is quite different obviously as City on Fire works more with the relationship between the uncover cop and one of the criminals, from the beginning of his investment (the undercover cop) in the gang to the bloody finale, while Reservoir Dogs has a much bigger emphasis on when it all goes to hell.

After being thoroughly disappointed with the Hobbit, I saw Painted Skin II: The Resurrection.

It's also a fantasy film, set in medieval China. Not exactly underground, it's the biggest box office success for a Chinese movie in China. Great film, I highly recommend it. Excellent sad music too, rivals any gothic band.

Speaking of Tarantino taking loads of influences for his movies, I highly recommend City on Fire for those who liked Reservoir Dogs. The general theme/plot what almost lifted from that film - the jewelry heist with an undercover cop that goes wrong. It's impossible he was not influenced by that film considering his love for Hong Kong cinema.

Tarantino wasnt just influenced by City on Fire, he directly COPIED City on fire, some camera angles, some lines, ect. Taratino just plagerized the movie and just made it his way. Reservoir dogs is still a great. Movie, it is plagerized.

Jusy how like Death Proof was a direct cooy of Vanishing point. They (the characters in the movie) dont say they love that movie for a reason.

I'm late to the party but I'm currently watching the Avengers. It is stupid and overrated and annoying with some good action. For one, They keep pn calling the cube a "Tessaract" while other characters still call it a cube. tesseract =/= Cube. It is stupid and Whoever wrote it has pulling shit out of his ass.

Also, that Django movie is pretty awesome. it isn't a Django movie, but it is a good movie. (who those who dont get it see the original Django and compare).

_________________

DarknessCrave wrote:

Since Danzig, Doyle, Jerry and Dr. Chud have their metal bands added in this page, is there any possibility on add Misfits as side project?

Shadechaser wrote:

But all of them dim and fade 'cause the man named PDS has an other opinion....

I like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but what really annoys me about Tarantino's movies is that he's attained this huge, HUGE following, I'd call it 'cult following' but it's probably way too big for that, while the people who heavily influenced him remain largely unknown among the teens and 20-somethings who revere him. There's nothing wrong with kingnuuuur watching Tarantino and Godard's films (and all T's other influences) and then deciding that he prefers T's works; what I have a problem with is people idolizing his films without really understanding how much they borrow from other films. It'd be like saying Pepsi is the best cola ever, without having tried Coke. It's just ridiculous.

I agree with you about Tarantino having a huge mindless following, but to his credit he's always been very vocal about his many influences. It's not as if he's plagiarizing (I know you didn't accuse him of that) without acknowledging where his quirks and style come from.

I just saw Django Unchained today and really enjoyed it. Not his best, but thoroughly entertaining stuff. I simply love Christoph Waltz and, not surprisingly, he completely stole the show for me. I think the rock-solid cast was what really held the movie together so tightly with Jamie Fox as a solid lead and DiCaprio, who is sometimes a bit hit and miss for me, also being a major highlight. Samuel L. Jackson was also in a really strange but interesting role (one of the minor problems I had with the movie was in not really developing his character or exploring any kind of justification for his bizarre nature).

Anyway, if you're a fan of Tarantino and go in expecting action packed fun, I'd be surprised if you're disappointed.

The bottom line is that if someone doesn't take an active approach to trying to learn the history and understand film (or anything for that matter), then they just don't know what they are talking about

It's a very good thing that you and Dakeningday have a very small shell from where you can be heard, microscopic in terms of the scope of the internet.

In other news, I watched Grown Ups just out of curiosity if a film with that line up could be as bad as people said, and wow.. Normally I'd give a write up but it honestly doesn't deserve it, it would be filled with too many complaints and expletives that it might cause temporary disorientation. I will say in summary that for a comedy, I barely smirked throughout it's 102 minute runtime, and that was only because an old lady was making fun of Rob Schneider. I found out there is a sequel to this abomination set for release next year, I know things aren't great in mainstream Hollywood but I was overwhelmed with disbelief at that news. Hell, I'd take another Chuck and Larry over a Grown Ups 2.

Thoroughly enjoyed Lawless with Tom Hardy and Shia Labeouf. Easily Labeouf's best effort to date. I found certain aspects of the film hard to believe but in the scope of the action and terrific acting that all took a back seat. The action had meaning and wasn't overblown to drive the film, the characters stories accomplished that. I really enjoyed watching Labeouf's character develop and progress throughout the film, I really felt a sense of progression in a steady flow, which of course was aided by excellent editing. I was attentive and completely entertained from the moment it began, so for me it's one of my favourite movies of the year next to Looper. Mind you I haven't seen every new release yet.

The bottom line is that if someone doesn't take an active approach to trying to learn the history and understand film (or anything for that matter), then they just don't know what they are talking about

It's a very good thing that you and Dakeningday have a very small shell from where you can be heard, microscopic in terms of the scope of the internet.

What a thoughtful, totally not fallacious thing to argue. You'll do well here.

Yeah, and saying everyone who even sees the new Tarantino movie is an idiot is great debating, sure. You can't make statements like that and also play the victim when someone else turns your own garbage back on you. Doesn't work both ways.

What a thoughtful, totally not fallacious thing to argue. You'll do well here.

I've been here for awhile. You probably haven't noticed because I don't post pretentious, self righteous spew from my arse about artfag movies and British sitcoms that are average at best. I also don't express my excitement for shows nobody knows or cares about continually without response, routinely each week like an utter fool. Like MA is your personal diary

Django Unchained was pretty great I thought, but I'm not super hard to please when it comes to movies. A few big laughs, and a lot of great action scenes. I was actually surprised how little banter there was compared to a normal Tarantino film. Might make it easier to stomach for some of his detractors.

They ran a preview for Stand Up Guys before the movie which I hadn't heard about but now I'm fucking super psyched for. If you haven't heard of it allow me to pitch you the story: Christopher Walken and Al Pacino hang out all day, but Walken has to kill him at the end of it and doesn't want to.

Oh cool, a new Riddick movie? I actually quite enjoyed Pitch Black and the Chronicles of Riddick, not the height of cinema by any stretch of the imagination, but the latter especially was stylish and original as hell. It looks like an HR Giger version of the Flash Gordon movie or something. They're in same the classic "dumb but fun" sci-fi/action vein as Predator, except the second movie adds to that a really fantastic visual style, and has quite a bit more going on plot-wise. I'm definitely excited to see the new one.

_________________

MorbidBlood wrote:

So the winner is Destruction and Infernal Overkill is the motherfucking skullcrushing poserkilling satan-worshiping 666 FUCK YOU greatest german thrash record.

Because The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, Trainspotting, Casino, The English Patient, The Fly, The Shining, Dr. Strangelove, Out of Sight, Lord of the Flies, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, The Silence of the Lambs, Stand by Me, Memento, Die Hard, A Beautiful Mind, and Lord of the Rings were all really shitty movies.